§ 35. Mr. J. HOGGEasked whether a Sub-Commissioner is now actually in the Island of Lewis trying to deal with the demand for small holdings recently evinced by the imprisonment of cottars in the Calton Gaol?
Mr. McKINNON WOODAn officer of the Board of Agriculture revisited Lewis last month in order to try to deal with the demand referred to, and following on his report the Board are in communication with the proprietors' solicitors.
§ Mr. WATTAre we to understand that the holdings are being acquired by dealing with the landowner, and not compulsorily?
Mr. McKINNON WOODWe are always, as a mailer of principle, anxious to come to an agreement if we can. We cannot deal with this ease compulsorily under the terms of the Act.
§ 39. Sir JOHN JARDINEasked what amount was awarded by the arbiter in the Lindean small holdings compensation case to Mr. Scott Plummer, the proprietor; how much of the total awarded was based on the finding that the constitution of new holdings reduced the value of the whole estate; and what action has been taken on the award by the Board of Agriculture?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe total amount awarded by the arbiter in the Lindean small holdings compensation case to Mr. Scott Plummer, the proprietor, was £8,588 4s. 3d. Of that total £4,600 was awarded for loss caused by depreciation in the value of the estate. If, however, it is hereafter held that depreciation in the value of the estate attributable to the constitution of new holdings is not competent under the Statute, he assessed the compensation payable in respect of other causes of depreciation at £750. The Board of Agriculture for Scotland have paid to the proprietor the sum of £5,014 4s. 9d.; leaving him to recover by judicial process the balance of £3,850 (the difference between £4,600 and £750) in order that 926 the competency of that part of the award may be tested.
§ Mr. MORRELLAre we to understand that the arbitrator in these cases distinguishes between site value and improvements in making his award?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThat is not the point at all. It is a question of loss of capital value—a loss in selling value due to the creation of small holdings. The proprietor put forward the claim that as he lost control of his tenants the value of his estate was depreciated.
§ Mr. WATTIs it intended to remedy this evil as to depreciation in the Amending Bill now before Parliament?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThat is a question which should he addressed to my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. James Hogge).
§ Sir JOHN BARRANCan the right hon. Gentleman say when the point is likely to be determined, and by what authority?
Mr. McKINNON WOODBy the Court of Session. The proprietor will have to proceed for the balance which has not been paid—£3,850; the matter will then be settled by that action.
§ Mr. BARNESCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether the award which has been made is in accordance with the intention of the 1911 Act?
Mr. MCKINNON WOODIt is very difficult, but it was not intended, as I understand, to include consequential damages, or remote and conjectural damages, in the compensation made under that Act.
§ Sir HENRY CRAIKDocs the right hon. Gentleman think it proper from the Treasury Bench to give a judgment of his own in a case which is now pending before the Law Courts?
§ Sir H. CRAIKBut you did so.
Mr. McKINNON WOODI was asked a general question as to whether it was intended that certain damages should be included. Of course the Court is not bound by the intention.
§ Sir H. CRAIKNor by your opinion.
§ 40. Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Secretary for Scotland if he can state, as regards the land taken up for small holdings on the estate of Miss Scott, at Heriotfield, in the parish of Ancrum, in the county of Roxburgh, the number of acres taken, the number of small holdings created, and the amount claimed by Miss Scott as compensation, with the details thereof, being items for depreciation of the letting value of the acres taken, depreciation of the value of the whole estate, injury to water supplies, or other particulars; and also, if any award has yet been made, what are the amounts and total awarded?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe extent of the land taken for small holdings at Harrietsfield was 291 acres, and the number of holdings constituted was seven; the total amount of compensation claimed by the proprietrix was £19,420, of which £4,840 was for damage to the letting value of the land taken, £9,180 for injury in respect of general depreciation in the value of the estate, £1,800 for breaking up the permanent pasture of the farm, £2,500 for injury to water supplies and to the letting value of the farm-house, £1,100 as the value of buildings, dykes and fences. The total compensation awarded by the arbiter was £4,750, of which £2,000 was awarded in respect of loss caused by depreciation in the value of the estate. If, however, it is hereafter held that depreciation in the value of the estate attributable to the constitution of new holdings is not competent under the Statute, he assessed the compensation payable in respect of other causes of depreciation at £1,000.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTAre we to understand that in respect of each of these small holdings, in addition to the rent the landlord has received on the average between £600 and £700 damages.
Mr. McKINNON WOODI have not worked out the figures. My hon. Friend is aware that, if the fair rent fixed is below the rent which the proprietor previously received for the land, the difference is capitalised and the proprietor receives compensation. But this claim as to the selling value is a different claim outside that.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTAre we to understand that in addition to the rent 928 received from the seven small holdings the-landlord has received a capital sum of £4,750?
Mr. McKINNON WOODI do not think you can quite draw that inference. That is-the total amount of compensation awarded. Some of that may be for loss of letting value.
§ Mr. BARNESAre we to understand from what has taken place that you cannot operate this Act unless you first of all bribe the landlord?
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEHad these farms been valued under the Land Valuation Clauses?